I might be saying this I already said earlier in this post. If so, apologies. It has been a long thread.
Elo, on this site, performs several functions. Regardless of what Elo was originally designed for, or what the BGA FAQ says Elo's function is on this site, it is nevertheless true that Elo has several functions here.
Elo here is a leaderboard / record of what has actually occurred. Sometimes, what occurs might differ from what was expected to occur, and results in different Elos than what we might expect based on a player's skill. Maybe that's a problem, maybe it is not. Even at high skill games (let's take "Earth" or "Terraforming Mars", as examples), the best players reach a point at which the combination of small sample size and small player pools cause significant Elo fluctuations. Top players at those two games Fluctuate between mis-600s and low 800s Elo. A player's Elo at any given moment may not reflect that player's actual skill. A player's average Elo over a large sample would be more accurate. Maybe there is a way to use some sort of rolling average Elo when calculating the Elo change after a game?
The nature of a high-luck game is that it is more difficult for the high-skilled player to win. Whichever system is used, that will remain true, right?
I'm not sure a lower K-factor will help. To me, 20 is already a low k-factor. Anyway, a lower k-factor would create a tighter bunching among players who perhaps should not be tightly bunched.
Suppose we decide to use a lower or higher k-factor for games depending on the amount of luck involved. Who would make these determinations, and how?
To some extent, Elo provides some level of predictive value to aid in matchmaking. playing against opponents with similar Elo is more likely to result in being matched with a player of comparable skill than playing against opponents who Elo is plus or minus 200 points from the player. Sure, sometimes a player whose true skill Elo is 300 might have snuck up to 400 on a lucky streak, and might get matched against a player whose true skill Elo is 500 but has dropped to 400 on an unlucky streak. Isn't it true this can happen in any Elo system?
The different Elo spreads in different games, to me, serve a function of illustrating the luck component of the game. Hearts and Spades have low Elo ceilings, indicating a high level of luck. Zero-luck games tend to have high Elo Ceilings, sometimes approaching 1000 or even 1100. To me, that has value. It helps me decide which games I might be more inclined to enjoy playing. I'm not sure it's a problem that some games have lower Elo ceilings.
Elo, on this site, performs several functions. Regardless of what Elo was originally designed for, or what the BGA FAQ says Elo's function is on this site, it is nevertheless true that Elo has several functions here.
Elo here is a leaderboard / record of what has actually occurred. Sometimes, what occurs might differ from what was expected to occur, and results in different Elos than what we might expect based on a player's skill. Maybe that's a problem, maybe it is not. Even at high skill games (let's take "Earth" or "Terraforming Mars", as examples), the best players reach a point at which the combination of small sample size and small player pools cause significant Elo fluctuations. Top players at those two games Fluctuate between mis-600s and low 800s Elo. A player's Elo at any given moment may not reflect that player's actual skill. A player's average Elo over a large sample would be more accurate. Maybe there is a way to use some sort of rolling average Elo when calculating the Elo change after a game?
The nature of a high-luck game is that it is more difficult for the high-skilled player to win. Whichever system is used, that will remain true, right?
I'm not sure a lower K-factor will help. To me, 20 is already a low k-factor. Anyway, a lower k-factor would create a tighter bunching among players who perhaps should not be tightly bunched.
Suppose we decide to use a lower or higher k-factor for games depending on the amount of luck involved. Who would make these determinations, and how?
To some extent, Elo provides some level of predictive value to aid in matchmaking. playing against opponents with similar Elo is more likely to result in being matched with a player of comparable skill than playing against opponents who Elo is plus or minus 200 points from the player. Sure, sometimes a player whose true skill Elo is 300 might have snuck up to 400 on a lucky streak, and might get matched against a player whose true skill Elo is 500 but has dropped to 400 on an unlucky streak. Isn't it true this can happen in any Elo system?
The different Elo spreads in different games, to me, serve a function of illustrating the luck component of the game. Hearts and Spades have low Elo ceilings, indicating a high level of luck. Zero-luck games tend to have high Elo Ceilings, sometimes approaching 1000 or even 1100. To me, that has value. It helps me decide which games I might be more inclined to enjoy playing. I'm not sure it's a problem that some games have lower Elo ceilings.
